W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > May 2005

meeting record: 2005-05-19 SWBPD telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 08:54:12 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050520085150.02777068@127.0.0.1>
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

The record of the 19 May SemWeb Best Practices and Deployment WG
telecon [1] is ready for review.

   [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes

A text snapshot of revision 1.2,  $Date: 2005/05/20 12:51:59 $ follows.

-Ralph

----

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                 SemWeb BPD WG

19 May 2005

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0108.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-irc

Attendees

   Present
          David Wood, Alistair Miles, Ralph Swick, David Booth, Libby
          Miller, Elisa Kendall, Natasha Noy, Gavin McKenzie, Guus
          Schreiber, Mike Uschold

   Regrets
          Brickley, McGuinness, McBride, Nanni, Rector, Wallace, Govoni,
          Nguyen, Pepper, Garshol, Vitali, Presutti, Gessa, Gandon, Ng,
          Pan

   Chair
          DavidW

   Scribe
          Ralph

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Admin
               o [6]Next F2F
               o [7]Alternative telecon times
               o [8]Briefing of WWW2005
         2. [9]Liaison
               o [10]httpRange-14
               o [11]XML Schema Last Call
               o [12]OMG: ODM review
         3. [13]TF Updates
               o [14]PORT
               o [15]OEP
               o [16]WordNet
               o [17]XML Schema datatypes
               o [18]Vocabulary Management
               o [19]RDF-in-XHTML
               o [20]ADTF
               o [21]RDFTM
               o [22]Tutorial Page
               o [23]SETF
     * [24]Summary of Action Items

     _________________________________________________________________


1. Admin

   [25]previous 2005-05-05

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-swbp-minutes

   DavidW: welcome to David Booth of HP, new WG participant

   RESOLVED to accept [26]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-swbp-minutes as
   the minutes of the 5 May telecon, per
   [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0045.ht
   ml

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-swbp-minutes
     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0045.html

   RESOLVED to accept [28]http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-swbp-minutes as
   the minutes of the 21 April telecon, per
   [29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0039.ht
   ml

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-swbp-minutes
     [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0039.html

   PROPOSED next telecon 17 June 1700 UTC

   Ralph: Guus asked for an agendum to change the times of the telecons

   DavidW: yes, but given light attendance we need to wait on time change

   Ralph notes that David Booth is the author of the [30]script that
   reformats irc logs to be presentable ]

     [30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

   RESOLVED next telecon 17 June 1700 UTC

Next F2F

   [31]f2f straw poll results

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/ftf2005/results

   14 of 21 prefer Galway, everyone can live with Galway

   Natasha: there's a [32]workshop proposed for the days after ISWC, so
   f2f makes more sense before ISWC; the first ISWC workshops are 6 Nov

     [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0111.html

   ACTION: Ralph to start a poll on Thu/Fri 3-4 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 4-5 Nov
   vs. Fri/Sat 11-12 Nov. (noting the 11-12 dates conflict with OWL
   workshop) [recorded in
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action01]

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action01

   <aliman> any of the november dates are ok with me

Alternative telecon times

   Guus: almost every other time of week is better for me than the
   current time

   Natasha: any day of week is ok but 1700 UTC is best for me except
   Wednesday

   DavidW: 1700 UTC works best for me except Friday

   Ralph: Wed 1700 UTC not good for me either

   <aliman> 1700UTC is ok time for me, anyday except friday

   Ralph: I could only do 80 minutes on Tuesday at 1700 UTC. I would
   prefer Monday 1700 UTC

   MikeU: I could manage Mondays

   DBooth: propose a straw poll for Mon/Tue/Wed

   ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day; Monday,
   Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC [recorded in
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action02]

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action02

Briefing of WWW2005

   Guus: [35]W3C track was well-attended
   ... DavidW talked about applications
   ... Jeremy talked about RDF in XHTML, was very well done
   ... Guus talked about Topic Maps
   ... the RDF/A material gave rise to lots of comment
   ... Dave Beckett talked about GRDDL afterwards
   ... some people commented that SemWeb was less visible but I found
   SemWeb in most every talk, so thought it was quite visible

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2005/01/w3c-track05.html

   DavidW: agree, SemWeb very visible

   Guus: TimBL gave a [36]new version of his SemWeb layer cake
   ... some of the veterans present objected to the new formulation
   ... the version with DLP and Rules next to OWL

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/0511-keynote-tbl/#[$1\47]

   DavidW: there was a paper in which OWL-lite plus something had been
   implemented with rules

   Guus: Jeremy presented a good paper on signed graphs and provenance
   ... and a paper from DERI on OWL-Flight
   ... didn't really attend Dev Day

   DavidW: big paper on Dev Day was [37]KAON2 rule-based OWL system

     [37] http://kaon2.semanticweb.org/

   Guus: I gave a talk on the first workshop day
   ... workshop day was poorly attended
   ... my talk was to Japanese developers
   ... there were many interesting workshop talks
   ... I recommend looking at the workshop proceedings
   ... ISO registry may be of interest to this WG

   <libby> David Wood's panel got some attention on japanese blogs
   apparantly (according to kanzaki-san)

2. Liaison

2.1 httpRange-14

   ACTION: Chairs to discuss the httpRange-14 issue at the coordination
   level [CONTINUES]

   Guus: not much progress at Coordination Group

   DavidW: TimBL and DanC seemed to be clear that as SWBPD WG was not
   presenting new technical content the issue was not likely to make
   progress. So now what?

   Guus: one of our main points was that the TAG should move the issue as
   it was blocking us

   Ralph: is my recollection of the [38]March f2f discussion correct that
   there was a sense that any of the 4 options we identified were
   acceptable? Do we want to apply any ordering at all?

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-minutes#item09

   <aliman> what were 4 options again?

   Guus: that was my sense -- any of the 4 options were better than no
   decision

   Alistair: I am afraid that the 4 options were simply how I partioned
   the solution space and I might not have had enough knowledge of the
   problem to partition it adequately

   ACTION: DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options [recorded in
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action03]

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action03

2.2 XML Schema Last Call

   ACTION: Jeff to review XML schema LC draft [CONTINUES]

2.2 OMG: ODM review

   [40]Summary of feedback on the ODM Revised Submission (2005-01-10
   version) [Elisa 2005-04-27]

     [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Apr/0092.html

   Guus: do the two other proposals have a chance?

   Elisa: unclear. the MMS guys with whom Guus met in Japan have proposed
   an OWL metamodel with a different syntax
   ... though conforms closely to abstract syntax
   ... we've taken a slightly different approach in the metamodels which
   do allow close relationship to RDF and OWL
   ... Masada-san [sp?] proposal does not maintain closeness to RDF and
   OWL
   ... there's been some discussion on this
   ... so the graph model is not in the metamodel itself; it's in the
   profile section that I am working on
   ... and we are trying to make changes to primary metamodel that Jeremy
   and others have suggested
   ... some of these proposals have made it in and some not
   ... I'm still working on it
   ... we expect to publish a revision end of next week
   ... would really appreciate Guus' and others' input on that revision
   ... goal is for TC to present to OMG Design Taskforce meeting in June
   (~20 June) but not present for a vote at that time
   ... take to OMG Architecture Board for vote in September
   ... any feedback from SWBPD WG would be very much appreciate
   ... doc is 300 pages; it has many metamodels, e.g. for Topic Maps, ...
   ... focus on the sections that interest you

   Guus: my personal interest is in keeping the OWL-Full model in and not
   going to OWL-DL
   ... also regarding RDF/Topic Map link, get Steve Pepper involved

   Elisa: I believe Lars Marius helped develop the Topic Maps metamodel
   in the first place but the primary author of that part of the ODM
   submission is no longer with AT&T and I haven't heard much from him

   Guus: we should ask Steve Pepper for his strategy; it would be awkward
   to have two documents with different models published

   Elisa: the version in the spec to be published next week is unchanged
   from the previous version

   Guus: another topic is the politics around Business Rules

   Elisa: there has been some work in parallel with ODM by a group of
   folk calling themselves the "Business Rules Community
   ... the business rules folk claim their language can be used for
   ontologies
   ... OMG said there needed to be alignment between business rules and
   ODM
   ... I asked the business rules people to ground their logic in ODM
   ... that gives them a model-theoretic semantics
   ... I got Pat Hayes to sit with the business rules logicians at the
   W3C Rules Workshop
   ... they have agreed to ground their logic in Common Logic
   ... there is work afoot to get them to agree to work with us and with
   Pat Hayes in particular
   ... hopefully the result will be something close to a combination of
   OWL and Common Logic
   ... we'll see what happens at the June meeting; I plan to attend their
   presentation

   Guus: the business rules work has been specified fairly informally

   Elisa: yes, and we've said their logic needs to be grounded in
   something in order to achieve interoperability

   Guus: very nice of Pat, but he's offering them something that they
   currently do not have

   Elisa: yes, and it took some loud voices e.g. from NIST, to persuade
   them they were missing a large component that was useful to people

   DavidW: every time I go to a conference I see a new proposal for an
   ontology language that uses part of OWL but with a different logic
   subset that is incompatible
   ... is it your goal to try to get [the business rules] people to be
   clear about their logic in order to determine whether
   interoperabaility is even possible?

   Elisa: yes, first goal is to be able to understand clearly what they
   are saying then to see if it is compatible with ODM

   Ralph: that -- knowing what people are saying -- is the fundamental
   goal of RDF itself

3. TF Updates

3.1 PORT

   DavidW: congratulations to PORT TF on their [41]3 new WDs

     [41] http://www.w3.org/News/2005#item63

   Alistair: yes, we did it! got the first 3 SKOS Working Drafts
   published

   <libby> yay!

   Alistair: we had a slight hiccup with the [42]Quick Guide and got a
   quick ammendment to it

     [42] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-thesaurus-pubguide-20050517

   Alistair: the version linked from the [43]news item is no longer the
   latest version

     [43] http://www.w3.org/News/2005#item63

   Ralph: though the version linked from the news item does have a
   correct '[44]latest version' link

     [44] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-thesaurus-pubguide

   Alistair: we had proposed that every 2 months we'd review these
   document so OK to schedule a review for 17 July?
   ... should we ask Tom and Mark van Assem to review again?

   Ralph: I think we should open the floor to other volunteers

   DavidW: there is little to be gained from the same two people looking
   at it every two months

   Guus: the main issue now is whether there will be comments from the
   public
   ... you may want to solicit comments from groups who have special
   interest

   Alistair: I may send email to lists with special interest; is there
   anything special I shoudl say in such announcements?

   Mike: you could point out what you can do with this

   DavidW: there is no requirement and no template for such announcements
   ... you're representing the WG and W3C, so review your language before
   you hit 'send
   ... it would be good to include a requested deadline for comments

   Mike: I forwarded the publication announcement to our library people.
   I'd like to volunteer to review one of these documents; which would be
   the best to review?

   Alistair: all 3 are linked

   Guus: perhaps the SKOS Core Guide is the place to start; there is not
   much in the Quick Guide to review. The SKOS Core Specification is not
   as readable as the Guide

   Alistair: the Guide introduces all of the features of SKOS Core
   itself, the Specification is intended to be a reference document. I'll
   set 17 July provisionally as the next review date and run announcement
   mail drafts past Guus, DavidW, and Ralph

   DavidW: in 2 months I will have forgotten that this agendum was to
   come back up; please remind me at the tithe chairs

   Alistair: Eric Miller asked us to think about machine-readable change
   policies

   ACTION: Alistair to think about machine-readable change policies
   [WITHDRAWN]

   Alistair: I'll have to talk with EricM about what he was expecting
   ... I will put a seeAlso reference in the RDF to the spec
   ... propose to drop the action
   ... I don't know what we'd put in the RDF

   Ralph: I don't think a seeAlso meets Eric's expectations but I think
   it makes sense to find out what Eric was thinking of and consider
   whether the TF wants to tackle it. I suspect it's not a simple job.
   ... DanBri is a good author of general announcements to lists, suggest
   you use him to consult
   ... also, the 'which document do I read first' is probably a FAQ

3.2 OEP

   Natasha: waiting for Mike to finish his comments
   ... Specified Values to be published soon
   ... not aware of discussion of Time Note
   ... Jerry Hobbs may be turning some material he has into a draft

   Guus: any idea of Jerry's time schedule?

   Guus:new HP participant, David Booth; which task force were you
   thinking of joining?

   DBooth: I'm still thinking about that, catching up on what the WG is
   doing

   ACTION: Ralph help Alistair with publication process for SKOS
   documents [DONE]

3.3 WordNet

   Guus: I'm worried that we still haven't published a data model. I will
   contact Aldo to see if we can find additional resources to work on
   this

   Guus: it's an important publication and I'd like to finish it before
   the end of our charter

   <aliman> +1 on important publication

   ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description
   [CONTINUES]

   ACTION: Alistair e-mail group about ISO contact [DONE]

   [45]ISO TC37 information, contacts & links

     [45] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0081.html

   Alistair: Aldo said my question about the data model will be answered
   when the document is published

3.4 XML Schema datatypes

   [skipped, no representative]

3.5 Vocabulary Management

   Alistair: TomB [46]summarized our telecon well

     [46] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0085.html

3.6 RDF-in-XHTML

   Ralph:We had a 2 person [47]telecon this week, not mailed about it
   yet, but brief
   ... update from html wg is that they hope to publish a new WD next
   week
   .. they were waiting for an xml schema for xhtml2; they got one and
   should have discussed it yesterday
   ... been some discussions on mail recently about rdf/a in or out of
   what xhtml wg publishes
   .. one person has suggested it should be dropped, but this person is
   not on either wg
   ... however the discussions have encouraged ralph
   ... Ralph is still a a bit concerned about whether the xhtml2
   specification will explicily tie its semamtics to RDF
   ... and whether the specificity in the October RDF/A draft will be in
   the documents published by them...perhaps not
   ... this wg should watch carefully and make sure that any conformance
   requirements in xhtml2 spec make clear that the xhtml2 syntax use
   binds you to the rdf semnatics...worried that it will be looser than
   that RDF/A spec and XHTML2 spec
   ... little we can do at the moment because the document is an editors
   draft, which we can read and comment on but the public can't see
   ... Ralph's suggestion is to wait to comment until published as a
   working draft to persuade them to publish and so the discussions can
   take place propely in a public forum
   ... plus the editor's draft can change before publishing though this
   material is unlikely to do so
   ... ralph's advice to this wg is to hold tight and wait for them to
   publish, though there are risks there
   ... the question is whether the comments would make sense without the
   context of the specification
   ... at the moment the interested communities can't see the proposed
   solution
   ... doesn't think there's any effective way this wg can say anything
   more to xhtml wg to get them to publish more quickly
   ... stated holdup is awaiting xml schema for their working draft
   ... could go through advisory reps because xhtml wg have not done an
   update to their docs in 9 months, but probably little effect
   ... had made a request to wg on behalf of the GRDDL editors looking
   for coeditors - Dave Beckett offered to discuss it with them, which is
   progress
   ... the wg needs to consider how much effort to put in the GRDDL
   direction

     [47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005May/0025.html

   ACTION: DanBri help write an rdf schema for the additional xhtml2
   namespace elements [DONE]

   [48][DanBri 2005-05-19]

     [48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0126.html

   ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have
   use cases [CONTINUES]

3.7 ADTF

   Libby: nothing to report

3.8 RDFTM

   [no representatives present]

3.9 Tutorial Page

   [49]FAQ draft published

     [49] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0048.html

   Alistair: could we start an FAQ as a WiKi?
   ... is the idea that all FAQ submissions would go through Benjamin?
   ... if we put them in a WiKi then Benjamin's job could be to massage
   the WiKi into a snapshot

   Ralph: I like Alistair's proposal and suggest that he go ahead and
   start it

   <aliman> Ralph where should I put it?

   <RalphS> [Alistair, I propose something like
   [50]http://esw.w3.org/topic/BestPraticesFAQ ]

     [50] http://esw.w3.org/topic/BestPraticesFAQ

   <aliman> Ok will start that ralph, following Benjamin's guidelines

   <RalphS> I suspect if you start it, Benjamin may find it useful

3.10 SETF

   Elisa: [51]telecon minutes were posted
   ... there are still missing sections, specifically automated software
   engineering, that we need help with
   ... [52]editor's draft has been revised a number of times
   ... working toward Galway workshop on software engineering; on 6 Nov
   ... we've gotten quite a bit of active response to that workshop

     [51] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0129.html
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/

   [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

   [DONE] ACTION: Alistair e-mail group about ISO contact
   [DONE] ACTION: DanBri help write an rdf schema for the additional
   xhtml2 namespace elements
   [DONE] ACTION: Ralph help Alistair with publication process for SKOS
   documents
   [WITHDRAWN] ACTION: Alistair to think about machine-readable change
   policies
   ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description
   ACTION: Chairs to discuss the httpRange-14 issue at the coordination
   level
   [NEW] ACTION: DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options [recorded
   in [53]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
   ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have
   use cases
   [NEW] ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day; Monday,
   Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC [recorded in
   [54]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
   ACTION: Jeff to review XML schema LC draft
   [NEW] ACTION: Ralph to start a poll on Thu/Fri 3-4 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 4-5
   Nov vs. Fri/Sat 11-12 Nov. (noting the 11-12 dates conflict with OWL
   workshop) [recorded in
   [55]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action01]

     [53] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action03
     [54] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action02
     [55] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action01

   [End of minutes]

     _____________________________________________________________


    Minutes pre-formatted by David Booth's [56]scribe.perl version 1.126
    ([57]CVS log)
    $Date: 2005/05/20 12:51:59 $

     [56] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [57] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 20 May 2005 12:54:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:17 GMT